3 ms·

Imagine getting something like DCMA takedowns because your voice happens to sound similar to someone famous or you look like someone else.

dotancohen 3y ago
Your voice or your looks are not AI.
- candiddevmike 3y ago
  How do you prove that outside of a courtroom?
- fallingknife 3y ago
  And for only $700 / hour to hire an expert witness on AI (on top of hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills to get to that point), you can prove it in court!
- jjulius 3y ago
  And a bot programmed to scan YT for anything that sounds like X person's voice isn't going to give a shit if it's literally just your voice, they'll still throw a DMCA notice at your video. Bogus DMCA takedowns are thrown at people all the time for stuff like this, and Google already hardly cares to hear your argument against the notice.
  - judge2020 3y ago
    > Bogus DMCA takedowns are thrown at people all the time for stuff like this, and Google already hardly cares to hear your argument against the notice. The automated system you're talking about is called Content ID and is "not DMCA". DMCA is a legal statute, which is where copyright holders expressly file a notice to YouTube that they're hosting infringing content, and getting one as an uploader will lead to an account strike. Content ID is completely separate from any legal mandate (besides the settlement Google made with Viacom). In fact, it's even separate from Copyright entirely; YouTube is under no obligation for Content ID to operate only on copyrighted content. If YouTube was willing, they could take a paycheck from Disney to keep Steamboat Willie stuff protected by Content ID, since it's their own system and their own rules. For this reason, the process for Content ID appeals is tougher - it's in YouTube's best interest to keep videos claimed, particularly if they need to appease rights holders[0] who hold all the cards for whether or not their music is available on YouTube. If it were a DMCA notice instead, you would have a legal right to counter the DMCA notice (under fair use) and get your video reinstated, unless the rights holder tells YT they have filed suit against you. 0: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-42420218 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-42420218
    - jjulius 3y ago
      >DMCA is a legal statute, which is where copyright holders expressly file a notice to YouTube that they're hosting infringing content, and getting one as an uploader will lead to an account strike. I am well aware of the differences between the two, and this is exactly what I was referring to. There absolutely have been instances of bogus DMCA takedown notices negatively impacting users and being a nightmare for them to resolve.
      - judge2020 3y ago
        Then I don't see how it's fair to criticize YouTube for this. The DMCA process makes it so that YouTube doesn't have much choice in the matter besides by suing the fraudster for false DMCA[0]. If they make a determination that "we think this DMCA is false so we'll bring your video up" they'd take on a lot of risk in assuming legal liability for that video if it actually infringing. They have done this before for obvious abuse, though[1]. 0: https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/15/20915688/youtube-copyright-troll-lawsuit-settled-false-dmca-takedown-christopher-brady https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/15/20915688/youtube-copyrig... 1: https://old.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/6em1gw/youtube_is_rejecting_fraudulent_dmca_takedown/ https://old.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/6em1gw/youtube_is_...
        jjulius 3y ago
        >Then I don't see how it's fair to criticize YouTube for this. I never criticized YT for this (stating that Google hardly cares to hear is just a fact, used as an example - they are notorious for not putting much effort into responding to customer service complaints), I just used it as an example of one platform on which this happens. The entire point of my post was to highlight the fact that bots scanning for copyright infringement don't typically care if your voice happens to sound like, say, Gilbert Gottfried. All the bot hears is Gottfried's voice, so bam, takedown notice sent. The platform doesn't matter.
- Scion9066 3y ago
  Doesn't need to be "AI" despite the bill's name (link to page that has link to draft of the bill): http://salazar.house.gov/media/press-releases/salazar-introduces-no-ai-fraud-act http://salazar.house.gov/media/press-releases/salazar-introd... (a) DEFINITIONS.-In this Act: [...] (2) The term "digital depiction" means a replica, imitation, or approximation of the likeness of an individual that is created or altered in whole or in part using digital technology. [...] (4) The term "digital voice replica" means an audio rendering that is created in whole or in part using digital technology and is fixed in a sound recording or audiovisual work which includes replications, imitations, or approximations of an individual that the individual did not actually perform. [...] (7) The term "digital technology" means a technology or device now known or hearafter created such as computer software, artificial intelligence, machine learning, quantum computing, or other similar technologies or devices.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
emmp 3y ago
There is already precedent of this, where it was overt. Tom Waits, owner of a very distinctive vocal style, famously successfully sued Frito-Lay for making a commercial that used a singer that sounded too much like him. This was in the 80s, well before the Web or Generative AI.

dotancohen 3y ago

Your voice or your looks are not AI.

candiddevmike 3y ago
How do you prove that outside of a courtroom?
fallingknife 3y ago
And for only $700 / hour to hire an expert witness on AI (on top of hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills to get to that point), you can prove it in court!
jjulius 3y ago
And a bot programmed to scan YT for anything that sounds like X person's voice isn't going to give a shit if it's literally just your voice, they'll still throw a DMCA notice at your video. Bogus DMCA takedowns are thrown at people all the time for stuff like this, and Google already hardly cares to hear your argument against the notice.
- judge2020 3y ago
  > Bogus DMCA takedowns are thrown at people all the time for stuff like this, and Google already hardly cares to hear your argument against the notice. The automated system you're talking about is called Content ID and is "not DMCA". DMCA is a legal statute, which is where copyright holders expressly file a notice to YouTube that they're hosting infringing content, and getting one as an uploader will lead to an account strike. Content ID is completely separate from any legal mandate (besides the settlement Google made with Viacom). In fact, it's even separate from Copyright entirely; YouTube is under no obligation for Content ID to operate only on copyrighted content. If YouTube was willing, they could take a paycheck from Disney to keep Steamboat Willie stuff protected by Content ID, since it's their own system and their own rules. For this reason, the process for Content ID appeals is tougher - it's in YouTube's best interest to keep videos claimed, particularly if they need to appease rights holders[0] who hold all the cards for whether or not their music is available on YouTube. If it were a DMCA notice instead, you would have a legal right to counter the DMCA notice (under fair use) and get your video reinstated, unless the rights holder tells YT they have filed suit against you. 0: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-42420218 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-42420218
  - jjulius 3y ago
    >DMCA is a legal statute, which is where copyright holders expressly file a notice to YouTube that they're hosting infringing content, and getting one as an uploader will lead to an account strike. I am well aware of the differences between the two, and this is exactly what I was referring to. There absolutely have been instances of bogus DMCA takedown notices negatively impacting users and being a nightmare for them to resolve.
    - judge2020 3y ago
      Then I don't see how it's fair to criticize YouTube for this. The DMCA process makes it so that YouTube doesn't have much choice in the matter besides by suing the fraudster for false DMCA[0]. If they make a determination that "we think this DMCA is false so we'll bring your video up" they'd take on a lot of risk in assuming legal liability for that video if it actually infringing. They have done this before for obvious abuse, though[1]. 0: https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/15/20915688/youtube-copyright-troll-lawsuit-settled-false-dmca-takedown-christopher-brady https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/15/20915688/youtube-copyrig... 1: https://old.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/6em1gw/youtube_is_rejecting_fraudulent_dmca_takedown/ https://old.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/6em1gw/youtube_is_...
      - jjulius 3y ago
        >Then I don't see how it's fair to criticize YouTube for this. I never criticized YT for this (stating that Google hardly cares to hear is just a fact, used as an example - they are notorious for not putting much effort into responding to customer service complaints), I just used it as an example of one platform on which this happens. The entire point of my post was to highlight the fact that bots scanning for copyright infringement don't typically care if your voice happens to sound like, say, Gilbert Gottfried. All the bot hears is Gottfried's voice, so bam, takedown notice sent. The platform doesn't matter.
Scion9066 3y ago
Doesn't need to be "AI" despite the bill's name (link to page that has link to draft of the bill): http://salazar.house.gov/media/press-releases/salazar-introduces-no-ai-fraud-act http://salazar.house.gov/media/press-releases/salazar-introd... (a) DEFINITIONS.-In this Act: [...] (2) The term "digital depiction" means a replica, imitation, or approximation of the likeness of an individual that is created or altered in whole or in part using digital technology. [...] (4) The term "digital voice replica" means an audio rendering that is created in whole or in part using digital technology and is fixed in a sound recording or audiovisual work which includes replications, imitations, or approximations of an individual that the individual did not actually perform. [...] (7) The term "digital technology" means a technology or device now known or hearafter created such as computer software, artificial intelligence, machine learning, quantum computing, or other similar technologies or devices.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

emmp 3y ago

There is already precedent of this, where it was overt. Tom Waits, owner of a very distinctive vocal style, famously successfully sued Frito-Lay for making a commercial that used a singer that sounded too much like him. This was in the 80s, well before the Web or Generative AI.